Priorisierung präventiver Leistungen - Präferenzen aus Sicht der Bevölkerung zur horizontalen Priorisierung von Versorgungsbereichen sowie vertikalen Priorisierung präventiver Leistungen sowie den Priorisierungskriterien „Kosten“, „Nutzen“, „Zielgruppe“ und „Art der Prävention"

  • The study examined preferences amongst different health care areas and different preventative services. In addition, it investigated the importance of the prioritization criteria of costs, benefits, types of prevention and target groups for the benefit assessment of preventive services. Diverse demographic and health-related characteristics were analyzed as possible influencing factors on the attitudes of respondents. An online survey was conducted with participants with a quota sampling based on sex, age and SES primarily through social networks in Germany. Rankings were used to examine the importance of 7 health care areas and 12 different preventive services. In the online survey, preference measurements were carried out using a Traditional-Conjoint-Analysis (TCA) and a Discrete-Choice-Experiment (DCE). The attributes costs, benefits, target groups and types of prevention were included, described by different factor levels. Participants were asked to give information about their sociodemographic and health-related characteristics. Data was analyzed using non and parametric-tests, OLS-regression and COX-regression. 244 people participated in the survey. In the opinion of respondents, the treatment of acute life-threatening injuries and diseases has the highest priority in the horizontal priority setting of health care areas, while secondary prevention follows in second, primary prevention in fourth and tertiary prevention was posteriorized. Medical-preventive services were clearly preferred to non-medical preventive services. The findings regarding the TCA show that benefits is the most important criterion for the respondents for the allocation of preventative services, followed by target groups, types of prevention and costs. In the DCE, priority was clearly given to the priority criteria benefits, followed by target groups, costs and types of prevention. There was hardly any association between the perceived preferences and the personal influencing factors.

Download full text

Cite this publication

  • Export Bibtex
  • Export RIS

Citable URL (?):

Search for this publication

Search Google Scholar Search Catalog of German National Library Search OCLC WorldCat Search Catalog of GBV Common Library Network Search Catalog of Jacobs University Library Search Bielefeld Academic Search Engine
Meta data
Publishing Institution:IRC-Library, Information Resource Center der Jacobs University Bremen
Granting Institution:Jacobs Univ.
Author:Daniela Salzmann
Referee:Adele Diederich, Margrit Schreier, Gerd Glaeske
Advisor:Adele Diederich
Persistent Identifier (URN):urn:nbn:de:gbv:579-opus-1007330
Document Type:PhD Thesis
Language:German
Date of Successful Oral Defense:2017/02/24
Date of First Publication:2017/08/24
Academic Department:Social Sciences & Humanities
PhD Degree:Psychology
Focus Area:Diversity
Other Organisations Involved:Priorisierung in der Medizin - DFG-Forschergruppe FOR655
Call No:Thesis 2017/16

$Rev: 13581 $